Wednesday, 27 February 2013

You Ought to Rule Over the People !

I was directed to this artcile on the internet. A very interesting read and it also challenges your own principles on such matters. This is courtesy of brother Eesa Sulaiman who shared this article with me.

People Against Opposition.

You are a
billionaire. You possess more wealth than ordinary people can even dream of.
You enjoy luxury and privilege unlike all others. Most importantly of all, you
have enormous power–the power to make others do your bidding, to shape the
world according to your fancy, to tell “the people”–the little ones–how it’s
going to be whether they like it or not. All of this you now possess. But can
you hold on to it? That is the supreme question! You own the world today, but
what must you do to ensure you still own it tomorrow? You need the Owner’s
Manual. Fortunately for you it is now in your hands.

This Owner’s
Manual summarizes lessons learned from the experience of your forebears, people
just like you over the past millennia: Emperors, Kings, High Priests, Moguls,
Communists and ruling elites of every stripe. Some lessons come from their
discoveries of methods for staying in power. Others are lessons learned the
hard way, from the the crucial mistakes of those who once were mighty but were
overthrown because they did not know something that you will know when you read
this Manual. Heed the wisdom in this Manual or else the suffering of your
forebears who were overthrown will have been in vain, and you, like them, will
surely fall from your exalted position of power.

Chapter 1: Know
That You Ought To Rule Over the People

Failure to
believe, deep in one’s heart, that one ought to rule over the people, is the
number one cause of failure to remain in power. It causes one to lack the
fortitude and conviction to do what one knows must be done to stay in power.
Therefore, know this. You are a billionaire because you are better than the
multitude. You are wiser. You work harder and smarter. You care about the
welfare of humanity unlike the greedy self-serving multitude. You understand
that if you don’t make people work, then they won’t work because they, unlike
you, are lazy. Your skill at making people work, by inducing in them the fear
of unemployment and poverty if they don’t work and the hope of rising a bit
higher than others if they work harder, is what produces the wealth of society.
If it were not for you being in charge, there would be no economic wealth,
there would be no jobs, there would be no science, there would be no art and no
high culture: no new cures for diseases, no missions to outer space, no
symphonies or operas, no fine literature or poetry. If you are overthrown then
society will go to hell in a handbasket. You have a moral obligation to
humanity to remain in power. You should feel only deep shame if you allow
yourself to be overthrown by the riff-raff and the mob. Whenever you hesitate
to do what is necessary to stay in power, remember this: You Ought to Rule Over
the People!

Chapter 2: The
People Are Your Enemy

The people–the
“little ones” who are not billionaires like you–are your enemy. Forget this,
and you are lost. Left to themselves, the people would make a world without
billionaires, a far more equal and democratic world than the one your very
existence as a billionaire requires, a world in which you would have to work
and live as a mere equal with all others, a world run by people who are, as you
know, a lazy good-for-nothing uncultured riff-raff, a dangerous mob who must
never be allowed to take over. But this catastrophe is exactly what the people
want, and this is why they are your enemy.

You dare not
destroy the people, however, because you need them; they create your wealth,
and without the people and their obedience to you your power is nothing. Since
you cannot destroy the people you must control them. You must prevent them from
making the kind of equal and democratic world they want. You must never forget
that their aims in life are the opposite of yours. When they create relations
of solidarity with each other, and decide to help rather than compete against
each other, it means you are in trouble. Even when they do this on a small
scale merely in their own little corners of the world out of the sight of
others it is a threat to you that you ignore at your own grave risk. What
starts on a small scale can erupt on a moment’s notice on a large scale, and
then it is too late and you are doomed. When the people become confident and
hopeful enough to start talking about revolution, it means you are facing
disaster. Never forget: the people are your enemy and you must control them!

Chapter 3: Turn
the People Against the People

The people will
either turn against you or turn against themselves. Make sure they turn against
themselves. There are many ways to do this.

To do this
successfully one must first have a credible enemy. If one is not already
available it may be necessary to create one. Creativity is required. Adolph
Hitler, God bless his soul, is the master to learn from here. His skillful
burning down of the Reichstag building and blaming it on Communists was truly
inspired statesmanship. By linking Communists and Jews and Great Britain and
France all together as the source of everything afflicting the German people,
Hitler created the perfect all-purpose enemy. The Americans who orchestrated
the 9/11 attack clearly learned this lesson well, and are enjoying the benefits
of having a superb enemy that can be “found” anywhere it is convenient to
“find” it, from Somalia to New York City. With any luck they will be able to
keep the War on Terror going for many wonderful decades.

These
enemy-creating ruses will be exposed by various social discontents; therefore
use all means to marginalize them so they will not be taken seriously. Accuse
them of advocating a “conspiracy theory” and mock them for it. Use your useful
idiots across the political spectrum from right to left to tell their followers
why the “conspiracy” nuts are not worth taking seriously.

You must learn
the proper use of atrocities. Your Japanese forebears are excellent teachers.
The Japanese rulers made the Chinese people their “useful enemy” in the second
Sino-Japeanese War that began in 1937. But they had a problem: the Japanese
soldiers were peasants who hated the Samurai officer class who treated them like
dirt. Japanese peasants were of the same oppressed class as the Chinese
peasants who were fighting in the Communist-led army against them. The
Communists appealed to the Japanese peasant-soldiers to join them against their
common class enemy, and substantial numbers of Japanese peasant-soldiers began
to do so. There was only one way to nip this problem in the bud, and the
Japanese generals–demonstrating admirable wisdom and resoluteness–did it. They
committed one of the world’s greatest atrocities, the Rape of Nanking,
raping and murdering hundreds of thousands of defenseless Chinese civilians.
The hatred of Japanese–all Japanese people–engendered among the Chinese put the
kibosh on further fraternization between Chinese and Japanese soldiers.

Your forebears
who ruled Yugoslavia in the 1990s (Communists, but nonetheless the same as
you) applied
this lesson magnificently when they launched violent attacks
against Serbs by the leaders claiming to represent Croats, and against Croats
by the leaders claiming to represent Serbs. These leaders were threatened by a
Serb/Croat population characterized by peaceful relations and even high rates
of intermarriage. To demobilize these people and pit them against each other
required the proper use of atrocities. You must learn from these masters.

2. Divide and
rule the people along race lines

If you are
fortunate enough to have a prominent racial difference among your people, then
pit them against each other along those racial lines.

Your forebears
hundreds of years ago discovered that the key to success here was to make one
race chattel property in a system of slavery, and make the other race believe
that they were enjoying a “privilege” to be low-paid workers hired by employers
(wage slaves) instead of slaves owned by masters. Your forebears enslaved
blacks and told whites that black enslavement was not only proper (“the blacks
must be inferior or else why would they be mere slaves?”) but it was also a
“white privilege,” in other words it was something that benefitted whites.
This worked for a while. But then it started to lose its effectiveness. Some
whites saw through the “white privilege” lie and realized that it was no
privilege at all, but rather an attack on them, to be dominated and exploited
by an upper class using divide and rule racism to get away with it. These
whites called for abolishing slavery. The immorality of slavery became more and
more apparent to more and more whites until that peculiar institution lost the
legitimacy that it required to be sustainable.

There is an
important lesson to be learned here. What worked in the past may stop working
in the future. Apartheid in South Africa is a good example of this. Zionism
(the idea that 78% of Palestine should be a Jewish State, a state only “of the
Jews” that must ensure–by ethnic cleansing–that it always has a Jewish majority
of at least 80%) may prove to be another example. You must be creative and use
new methods of divide and rule when necessary.

For example, when
chattel slavery became impossible to use, it was nonetheless possible to use
Jim Crow laws (“blacks must be inferior, or else they would be allowed entrance
to the same places as whites”) to accomplish much the same thing. When Jim Crow
outraged the people as much as slavery had then it was nonetheless possible to
disproportionately imprison blacks (“blacks must be inferior, or else how come
so many of them are criminals?”), thanks to the skillful use of drug laws, and
again accomplish the same goals as the previous methods. These new methods are
all fine and good, but they pale in comparison to a novel idea dreamed up by
that great servant of our class, Richard
M. Nixon, in 1969: Affirmative Action.

Affirmative
Action, almost single-handedly, destroyed a looming threat to billionaire power
at the time, which was the massive Civil Rights Movement against Jim Crow. The
problem with this movement was that it had united millions of whites and blacks
around the goal of abolishing racial discrimination. Hardly anybody could
publicly disagree with this goal. Solidarity between whites and blacks makes
the people start to feel confident that they can make the world more equal and
democratic, and it gives rise to a force that is truly frightening. It had to
be destroyed. But how? That was the question confronting Mr. Nixon. If the
government were seen to be attacking the Civil Rights Movement, the people
might rise up even more threateningly against our class.

Mr. Nixon had
what some believe was a divine inspiration. He went to the Civil Rights leaders
and told them that the goal they should fight for was Affirmative Action, in
other words government-mandated racial discrimination in favor of blacks over
whites to make up for previous discrimination the other way. The Civil Rights
leaders bought it hook, line and sinker. For the next few decades we had our
foremen and human relations offices and school and university admissions
offices telling millions of white working class people, “Gee, we’re sorry we
couldn’t give you the job (or admit you to the school) because we had to give
the job (or admission) to a less qualified black person.”

Just as intended,
the former solidarity and good will between blacks and whites began to erode,
as whites grew resentful of blacks getting favorable treatment. The plan worked
like a charm. Of course just as “white privilege” was actually a way our class
controlled and exploited whites as well as blacks, the new “black privilege”
was actually a way of controling and exploiting blacks as well as whites. The
destruction of solidarity made it possible for our class to get away with
abolishing most of the social safety net (courtesy of that wonderful man, the
“first black president,” Bill Clinton) and outsourcing most of the better
paying jobs to foreign nations with cheap labor. Thanks in large measure to
Affirmative Action (“black privilege” ha ha ha), billionaires were also able to
increase unemployment levels for blacks and whites, making them a lot more
desperate and easier to control. Everybody’s attention was distracted from this
ruse by the very visible presence of a small but growing black middle class.
This black middle class was yet another benefit of Affirmative Action: it made
it possible for our class to say that America with its billionaire rulers was
even more equal than before, since there were now blacks such as Barack Obama
and Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powel and Eric Holder in high positions. Richard
Nixon was a genius.

3. Divide the
people along cultural lines

The American
billionaires are, to their great credit, writing the book on novel methods of
social control based on divide and rule along cultural lines. The strategy is
straightforward: make one demographic group (let’s call it the “liberal” group,
which in the United States can be thought of as the NPR-listening demographic)
view the other demographic (let’s call it the “conservative” group, which in
the United States is the non-NPR-listening demographic) as dangerous and
certainly unfit to have a real say in society; and make the conservative group
view the liberal group as arrogant elitist social-engineering jerks. When done
successfully, the liberal group (typically the smaller of the two) will prefer
your rule to rule by the conservative group. They will fear genuine democracy
because it means letting the much-feared conservative group have a real say in
society. They will support you and praise you for keeping the conservative
group out of power, and even if they raise objections to some of the things you
do, you can rest assured that they will never seriously threaten your power. To
control these liberal group people and keep them from getting in your way over
the issues where they do actually disagree with you, it is important that you proactively
provide them mis-leadership designed to make them as confused and ineffective
as possible. For a wonderful example of how to do this, please study the
platform and activities of the Democratic Party and the speeches of Democratic
Party leaders in the United States, or the Labor Party in Great Britain.

At the same time,
the other conservative demographic group (typically the larger of the two, the
non-NPR-listeners in our example) will also need to be proactively led by you
to ensure that they do not get out of control. You need individuals and
organizations loyal to you and specialized for this exact purpose. These
individuals and organizations will champion the anger of the conservative group
at the elitism and arrogance and condescension of the liberal group, and
cleverly direct this anger into support for the rule of billionaires. It is
important to note that these individuals and organizations can only succeed to
the extent that the liberal group (the NPR-listeners) expresses elitist and
condescending views towards the conservative (non-NPR-listeners) group. For an
excellent example of how to lead the conservative (non-NPR-listeners) group,
listen to Rush Limbaugh (a true master of the art and worth his weight in
gold!) and study the platform and activities of the Republican Party.

It cannot be
emphasized enough that the success of this divide-and-rule strategy requires
simultaneously providing proactive leadership to both the liberals (to make
sure they are mobilized around elitist arrogant condescending fear of
conservatives) and the conservatives (to make sure their anger at the liberals
is channelled into support for the rule of billionaires.) The leaders of the
liberals and the leaders of the conservatives have different roles to play but,
like a quarterback and a pass receiver or a pitcher and a catcher, they are on
the same team–your team. Use them skillfully.

Of the many
issues American billionaires have used to implement this strategy, two deserve
special mention for the remarkable skill with which they have been employed:
same-sex marriage and gun control. Your American colleagues used their mass
media to elevate the issue of same-sex marriage from virtual non-existence (who
even thought about men marrying men or women marrying women back in the 1960s?)
to a question that vies for top place on the agenda of public discourse, with
laws enacted to make it legal in several states and more than 30 state
referenda on the question. Your colleagues didn’t just make same-sex marriage
an issue, they also cleverly framed the question in precisely the right manner
to make the divide-and-rule strategy work. They did not frame it in the terms
that all past debates about marriage legislation have been framed, i.e., in
terms of the consequences for the children who may be produced by this or that
type of marriage, such as sibling marriage or, in the past before there was a
cure, marriage involving a partner with syphilis. No, they very wisely framed
it in terms that had nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of children.
They framed it as a question of rights: should gays be denied their right to
marry–yes or no?

Brilliant!
Conservatives who thought children had a right to know and be known by their
biological mother and father, and that social policy should be designed to
protect this right, and who objected to same-sex marriage on the grounds that
it would promote the use of sperm or egg donor conception (the only way a same-sex
couple can produce a child) thus creating children who by design would not know
and be known by one of their biological parents–these conservatives NPR etc.
portrayed as people who did not want gays to enjoy their “right to marry,” and
as irrational Bible Fundamentalist homophobic bigots. NPR etc. carefully
censored any expressions of concern for the rights of children by opponents of
same-sex marriage. In a display of wonderful teamwork, the conservative mass
media also censored expressions of concern for the rights of childen by
opponents of same-sex marriage. The entire mass media did this so effectively
that liberals are totally unaware that concern for children has anything
whatsoever to do with why people object to same-sex marriage. Liberals believe
the only possible explanation is dumb, stupid, hateful “homophobia.”

Conservatives, in
turn, hear their concern for children dismissed as bigotry by the liberals and
react just as the divide-and-rule strategy requires: with anger at the elitist
arrogant condescension of liberals. One can only admire the billionaire agents
who crafted this same-sex marriage divide-and-rule scheme.

The other example
of effective divide-and-rule meriting your attention is the way your colleagues
have employed the gun control issue. The conservative demographic owns guns and
the liberal demographic does not. This is the kind of opportunity that a wise
billionaire cannot afford to waste. Your colleagues, to their great credit,
have put it to great use. Conservatives oppose more restrictive gun control
laws because they don’t want their right to bear arms to be whittled away. They
support the right to bear arms not only because they want to hunt or use them
as sport or even to use them in self-defense, but because they agree with the
Founding Fathers that the right to bear arms is important as a check by the
citizens against a tyrannical government. And they argue that gun control laws
don’t do anything to prevent bad people from getting guns and shooting good
people with them. NPR etc., however, portrays conservatives as people who are
crazy and downright dangerous because they don’t care about preventing bad
people from killing good people with guns. NPR etc. ridicules the idea that
guns today can enable citizens to resist any (supposed) tyranny by the United
States government. The NPR argument doesn’t hold water for reasons discussed by
one of your enemies
here (you should learn from your enemies) but it does persuade
liberals because liberals just don’t like guns and will accept any argument, no
matter how weak, that stigmatizes gun owners as terrible people who should not
be allowed to have a say in society.

4. Make the
People Compete Against Each Other

You must prevent
solidarity from developing among the people, lest it give them confidence to
rise up and overthrow you. You must therefore instill in the people the belief
that life is all about competition and they are all in competition with other
people like themselves. Workers in every place of work must be made to feel
that their jobs depend on “beating the competition.” They must feel threatened
by competing workers in the same neighborhood, by workers in different
neighborhoods in the same city, by workers in a different city, by workers in a
different state, and by workers in a different nation.

Not just the
adult workers, but their children as well must believe they are in a vicious
competition with others like themselves all over the world. They must hear over
and over again that the very purpose of their education is to prepare them to
compete in the world economy.

5. Turn the
People Against Themselves

So far we’ve been
discussing how to turn one part of the people against another part of the
people. Even more effective, however, is to turn the people against their very
selves. “Impossible!” you say? Not at all. You simply need to persuade people
that ordinary people (at least most of them) are very very bad, and therefore
if they overthrew the billionaires and took control of society it would only
make things worse. The cartoonist, Walt Kelly, in his comic strip, Pogo,
articulated this message in a single line that has become so famous and well known
that it is taken as the Gospel truth by millions of people: “We have met the
enemy and he is us.” This is a wonderful line! The more people you persuade to
believe it, the safer the world will be for you.

To make people
believe the Pogo message, simply tell them that whatever they perceive or
dislike in the billionaire ruling class exists just as much if not more in
ordinary people: greed, laziness, dishonesty, violence. Make sure every school
child reads Animal Farm and learns that overthrowing the old ruling
class doesn’t make things better because the new one will be just as bad, and
if a revolution aims to make things more equal then it will only mean that some
animals will end up being “more equal than others.”

The key is to
prevent people from believing the vicious lies spread by rabble-rousers such as
Dave Stratman. Stratman wrote a poisonous book called We
CAN Change the World that contains rubbish like this, which he claims
to have learned from his experience as a parent of children in the Boston
Public schools during the famous “bussing crisis” over integrating the schools
in the 1970s:

“The meaning of
these two years of experience was not immediately clear to me. Certain things
were apparent, to be sure. It was soon clear that there was more decency,
honor, good sense, and just plain goodness in the working class people of
Boston of whatever color than there were in all the forces ranged against them:
the politicians white and black, the School Committee, the Federal Court, the
Church, the Harvard and Boston University “experts,” the Boston Globe,
the liberals and the leftists.”

The way to
immunize people against such lies is to shower them daily with truthful images
of typical ordinary people. Good examples of this include the evening T.V.
news, which seldom strays from the truth because it is committed so correctly
to the principle: “If it bleeds it leads.” Television is a veritable fountain
of truth, with reality shows such as the Jerry Springer Show and shows that
reveal the true inner motivations of people such as the daily Soap Operas. The
best people in society–the ones who actually are, unlike most, caring and
thoughtful, honest to a fault, firm when necessary in a “tough love” kind of
way but tender heated always–are given lots of air time on television too, in
shows such as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and CSI: New York and CSI
Miami and NCIS and NCIS Los Angeles and Criminal Minds, all of which feature
the very best people in our society–cops. Ordinary people, however, need to be
portrayed correctly in T.V. fiction too. That’s why the Homer Simpson show and
Family Guy are so important; they reveal the true level of intelligence and
integrity of the typical American man. Never underestimate the importance of
television in persuading people that it would be sheer folly to overthrow
billionaires from power.

But television is
not the only tool at your disposal. Books are excellent also. Animal
Farm, of course, is invaluable, as long as you don’t let readers learn that
its author, George Orwell, also wrote Homage to
Catalonia, praising the anarchist-led Spanish

Revolution, which
the author fought in, and that his Animal Farm was intended as
an exposure of the fact that the Bolshevik Party that made a revolution in
Russia was not truly fighting for equality, and not intended to be an attack on
the very idea of making a true revolution for equality. Another good book, in
fact one that some cities have encouraged everyone to read, is To Kill
a Mockingbird. People love the book because it is against racism, but while
they are loving the book the important (for you) message of the book enters
their minds without their being consciously aware of the fact. This message is
that only exceptional white people (such as the lawyer hero in the book) from
the higher levels of society oppose racism, while most ordinary people (such as
the poor whites in the book) are as racist as can be.

Chapter 4: Make
Sure The People Follow Your Goals, Not Theirs

Your French
forebears at the time of the French Revolution made an absolutely priceless
discovery. They discovered that the people can be made to follow somebody
else’s goals while thinking they are following their own very different goals.
At the time of the French Revolution the people wanted equality. They wanted an
end to the inequality of society that made some rich and others poor. They
wanted people to be equal, with no rich and no poor. Their motto was “Liberté,
égalité, fraternité” and by égalité they did not mean
some people being rich and others being poor. Now this was a problem for your
forebears taking over from the King at this time. No rich and no poor was not
exactly what they wanted. But they needed the support of the people to prevail
against the old King and aristocracy that they aimed to replace.

What to do? One
of them had a stroke of genius. Declare that the goal of the revolution was
“equal opportunity.” The phrase featured the word “equal” so prominently that
it worked. Your forebears won the support of the people by opposing only one
very special kind of inequality–inequality based on inherited status. What the
people did not realize was that “equal opportunity” meant an equal opportunity
for people to get rich in a society very much still based on there being both
rich and poor. They didn’t realize that “equal opportunity” was about making
inequality more “perfect” in the sense of being based now (supposedly) on
individual merit instead of, as formerly, inherited status.

To this day you
and your colleagues benefit enormously from the widespread understanding of
“equality” as merely “equal opportunity.” Beware of anybody who says they want
a world of “equality” without immediately following this word with
“opportunity”!

Newer variations
on “equal opportunity” have been developed. One of the best is the assertion
that the goal is to create “a level playing field.” The word “level” gets a
reflexive nod of approval from the people–after all, playing on a tilted field
wouldn’t be fair, would it? The beauty of this phrase is that a playing field
is where people compete, and in the social/economic context this phrase
endorses competition that results in winners and losers, rich and poor. When
the people agree to aim for a “level playing field” they unwittingly are
agreeing to aim for a society with rich and poor, not one based on equality.
Make sure your politicians use the “level playing field” and “equal
opportunity” phrases on every possible occasion.

Chapter 5: Lower
the People’s Expectations

You cannot long
remain in power if the people develop high expectations about making a more equal
and democratic society. High expectations about changing the world develop when
people feel personally secure enough to devote time and energy to such a cause
and when they feel their collective strength in numbers as a result of
solidarity. The radical upsurge against all forms of established authority that
broke out in the 1960s, and which came close to overthrowing numerous elite
ruling class regimes in the world, stands as a dire warning of what can happen
when people’s expectations are permitted to rise.

To lower the
people’s expectations in life, you must a) make them personally insecure and b)
destroy solidarity wherever it breaks out.

To be personally
secure, people need to know that they can count on always having the basics: a
good paying job that will employ them long term, good health care when they
need it, good education for their children that will give them a good future.
Your strategy here is simple: make sure people don’t have these basics and fear
that it will be even worse for their children.

Eliminate the
better-paying jobs with automation or outsourcing to cheap labor nations. Make
health care a commodity that many will not be able to afford and have it
controlled by insurance companies motivated to come up with excuses for not
covering the most serious health needs. Subject school children to standardized
tests that are norm-referenced to produce the same high number of failures no
matter how well the children learn their lessons, and tell the children that if
they fail the test it means they are not smart enough or hard-working enough to
deserve a decent-paying job or even any job at all.

Destroy the
unions by refusing to negotiate with them and if they go on strike just lock
them out or even better yet fire them and replace them. (Learn from Ronald
Reagan’s masterful use of this tactic in dealing the air traffic controllers’
strike.) Make sure that your agents control any remaining unions so they will
sabotage efforts by the rank-and-file to win important demands. (For a good
example of this study how the United Paperworkers International Union and the
United Auto Workers union succeeded in defeating the Staley
and Caterpillar strikes centered in Decatur, Illinois in the 1990s, despite
some horrifying solidarity developing between the Staley and Caterpillar
workers.)

Chapter 6: Use
Fake Democracy

Encourage the
people to vote. Give them “lesser evil” candidates to vote for. Give them
conservative candidates and liberal candidates and third party candidates.
Saturate the airwaves with election news and debates as much as you can.
Elections are your friend. First of all, it makes little difference who gets
elected because the policitians don’t make government policy–you make policy.
Why else do you have your closed and private by-invitation-only policy-making
organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and Committee for
Economic Development and Business Roundtable and Tri-Lateral Commission?
Second, elections give the people hope that all they need to do to get changes
they want is to pull a lever now and then. That’s exactly what you want them to
think. Third, the politicians want your mass media to portray them as serious,
not marginal, and they want your money to wage their campaigns. You’re in the
driver’s seat here. Give the best media coverage and the most money to the
politicians who seem the most skilled at getting the people to go along with
your policies. Fourth, if by some remote chance a politician gets elected who
makes trouble for you, use a little character assassination. If that doesn’t
solve the problem, call in the CIA to do what they do best. (See Chapter 8.)

Chapter 7: Teach
the People to Be Nonviolent

Provide the
people with leaders who insist they embrace the philosophy of nonviolence.
Learn about this philosophy yourself so that you can evaluate which emerging
leaders of the people to support and which to marginalize if not eliminate. The
philosophy of nonviolence is your friend. It says that people should never use
force to overthrow you. It says they should try to persuade you to be “nice”
and that they should do things to demonstrate their sincerity to you, such as
go limp when police attack them and willingly go to jail when arrested. As long
as the people obey leaders who adhere to strict nonviolence, the only thing you
need to worry about is the nuisance created by large numbers of people filling
up the jails and things like strikes and refusals to work, which can be dealt
with by the usual punitive measures. As long as your military forces obey you
there is nothing to worry about. But be extremely worried if a large movement
develops support among your military personnel; this could be fatal. Everything
in this Manual is, in the final analysis, about how to prevent that from
happening.

Chapter 8:
Assassinate Dangerous Leaders

Dangerous leaders
sometimes emerge among the people, despite all efforts to prevent it from
happening. Even a leader who preaches nonviolence can become dangerous if he or
she succeeds in building a mass movement that has so much solidarity and
clarity about its goals that the members of the movement may, in spite of
objections by their nonviolent leader, decide to use force to overthrow you.

What makes a
leader very dangerous? Here are the warning signs: 1) They identify you and
your values as the enemy. 2) They unite everybody else who opposes your values
against you. 3) They say things like, “Revolution means shaping society by the
positive values of equality and mutual aid shared by most ordinary people,
values that the Billionaire class attacks.” 4) They never use “We” to refer to
the people who are the problem.

What makes a
leader acceptable or at least not very dangerous? Here are the key factors: 1)
They identify some group other than you (it makes little difference which
group) as the enemy. 2) They say some billionares are the enemy but others are
not (the reasons can vary: They’re our race, or natonality or religion, or
they’re not fasicsts like the other ones) and should be allied with, at least
for the time being. 3) They have as much contempt for the people as you do,
calling them, for example, “sheeple” or “homophobes” or “racists” or
“privileged” or “complicit”. 4) They always use “We” to refer to the people who
are the problem.

If you are
squeamish about assassinating very dangerous leaders you will be overthrown one
day by one. Learn from the steadfastness of your forebears in the United States
who confronted four individual leaders whom they had to assassinate. They had
no choice if they expected to remain in control.

John Kennedy and
his brother Robert were fine team players at first, and entirely loyal to our
class. But they got cold feet after the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to
thermoculear war. The Cold War against the Soviets was the way our class ruled.
If waging it meant possibly killing 30 million Americans, that was the price
our class needed to pay, and it wasn’t too big a price because there would
still remain far more live Americans for billionaires to rule over. But the
Kennedy brothers lost their nerve. JFK began retreating in the Cold War. RFK
would likely have done the same if he had become president. The purpose of the
CIA is to take care of such problems, and fortunately they did.

Malcolm X began
his career by identifying whites as the enemy. No problem. But then he went to
Egypt, had some kind of epiphany, and on his return started giving lectures to
white audiences and getting standing ovations. This happened, for example, at
Dartmouth College. The man was charismatic and had all of the warning signs of
extreme dangerousness. He had to go.

Martin Luther
King, Jr. began his career thinking that whites were the problem. He wouldn’t
use a word like “enemy” because he was also a follower of the philosophy of
nonviolence, at least in his public speeches (he also applied for a concealed
pistol permit and used armed body guards.) Normally MLK, Jr. would not have been
too dangerous to be permited to live. But three things changed this. First, he
changed his understanding of who was the problem and began speak in class, not
racial, terms. Second, he succeeded in building a mass movement based on the
value of equality. Third, he applied his class analysis so consistently that he
broke with all of the other Civil Rights leaders in speaking out against the
War in Vietnam, giving American GIs (many of whom were black) encouragement in
their growing refusal to fight the Viet Cong. King’s leadership was building a
movement that had a growing potential to reject his nonviolence philosophy (as
black rioters did even when King personally appealed to them to remain
non-violent) and overthrow our class. In order to defeat this dangerous
movement its leader had to go.

Chapter 9: A
Problem that Remains Unsolved

There remains a
problem that you must learn to solve without help from this Owner’s Manual. The
problem is this: How can billionaires defeat a revolutionary movement in which
the rank-and-file members all exibit the warning signs that, in a leader, would
mark him or her as very dangerous? Killing its leaders would accomplish little.
Your forebears never solved this problem. Fortunately the problem has never
arisen yet (or else you would probably not be a billionaire today) but it could
happen. Everything in this Manual is about how to prevent it from happening,
but the savvier ordinary people become, the less effective all of the
strategems in this Manual are. This is a serious problem!